The Duke of Sussex, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department

A public authority with a justiciable policy must ordinarily follow it, but may depart where it has a good reason. The court determines the policy’s meaning and reviews the adequacy of the reason; review is not confined to Wednesbury irrationality. Intensity of review depends on the policy’s character and subject matter. In sensitive national-security and Royal-protection decisions, substantial weight is due to specialist expertise, constitutional responsibility and democratic accountability, while the decision remains justiciable. A formal but unpublished policy requiring risk analysis may therefore be departed from where changed circumstances make a tailored, case-by-case process more useful and the reasons are cogent, contemporaneous and logically explained.

The Duke of Sussex challenged the lawfulness of protective security arrangements applied to him in the United Kingdom from June 2021 onwards. He argued that RAVEC had unlawfully departed from its Terms of Reference 2017 by withdrawing routine protection without commissioning a Risk Management Board risk analysis, and had failed to treat him as within, or analogous to, the Other VIP Category.

Mr Justice Lane dismissed the judicial review claim in [2024] EWHC 418 (Admin). Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds concerning departure from policy and comparator treatment. The central issue was whether RAVEC had good reason to adopt bespoke, case-by-case arrangements for the appellant’s future visits to the United Kingdom.

Appeal dismissed. The judgment of Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, with which Bean and Edis LJJ agreed, upheld the dismissal of the judicial review claim.

1. Applicable principle. A public authority must ordinarily follow a justiciable policy, promise or practice unless there is good reason to depart. The court determines the meaning of the policy. The good-reason question may be approached as one combined inquiry or as separate questions of departure and justification. The result is the same.
2. Intensity of review. The court must consider the policy’s place on the spectrum between formal public policy and informal internal guidance, and the decision’s place on the spectrum of appropriate deference. The Terms of Reference 2017 were formal but inward-facing, unpublished and not publicly consulted upon. Their subject matter concerned national and Royal security, an area within the specialist expertise of RAVEC, law-enforcement bodies and the Royal Household. The court therefore had to respect expertise, constitutional responsibility and democratic accountability, while recognising that the decisions remained justiciable. The SSHD’s argument that review was confined to Wednesbury unreasonableness was rejected.
3. Application. RAVEC’s ordinary process required evaluation of a Risk Management Board risk analysis. Sir Richard departed from that process, but contemporaneous correspondence and the evidence of the relevant experts supplied cogent reasons. The appellant had changed his status, lived principally overseas and was expected to make uncertain and occasional visits. A standing risk analysis would have addressed threat, vulnerability and impact, but not the context of particular future visits or the Government’s risk appetite. Bespoke arrangements were therefore a good reason for departure and were sensible and logically explained. It was unnecessary to decide whether the Terms of Reference 2021 applied, since the bespoke arrangement pre-dated them.
4. Comparators and outcome. The Other VIP Category was exceptional and no individual was directly comparable with the appellant. Superficial analogies did not answer the crucial question of whether there was good reason for the bespoke arrangement. A generally lower level of protection, or dissatisfaction with particular arrangements, did not itself establish a public-law error. The challenges to the decision letter and subsequent protective measures therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 548, the appeal was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Lane dismissed the judicial review claim in [2024] EWHC 418 (Admin), after granting permission on three grounds. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal on two grounds concerning compliance with RAVEC policy and comparator treatment.